An American Cultural Revolution?

The left is in the final stages of executing a top-down cultural revolution in America, argues Mike Gonzalez in this important book. The Plot to Change America lifts the lid on a half-century old New Left march through the country’s elite institutions. Their goal: to deconstruct the national story, replacing it with a neo-Marxist account of hierarchy and group conflict. The new national epic is about confessing the sins of the past to enter a millennium of equity and diversity. The fallen white oppressor redeems himself by agreeing to live in a state of permanent repentance. In place of allegiance to the Constitution, the Founding, liberal principles of equal treatment and an optimistic view of American history comes the usual hierarchy of racial and sexual victim groups at the top and white male oppressor at the bottom. Equal treatment even if resulting in somewhat unequal outcomes is to be replaced with unequal treatment to engineer equal outcomes. Minorities are dissuaded from assimilating—encouraged to nurture separateness, marinate in historic grievances, and develop what Jonathan Haidt terms a “common enemy” form of identity, coalescing around manufactured categories such as “Asian-American” or “People of Color.”

Many lament the rise of identity politics, but Gonzalez goes beyond standard critiques, performing much-needed spadework to trace the left’s steady infiltration of universities, government agencies, courts, foundations, and school boards since the 1960s. His perspective as an assimilated Cuban-American lends authenticity and urgency to the book.

The Rise of the Hyphenated-American

The story begins in 1948-9, when Marxist organizer Saul Alinsky worked with the Los Angeles Mexican-American community to build an oppositional consciousness. This bore fruit with the 1949 election of leftist Ed Roybal to Los Angeles City Council. The radical Community Service Organization (CSO) was founded soon after. Its aim: to stoke a sense of grievance and minority distinctiveness among Chicanos, thereby furnishing a unified, motivated Democratic bloc. From there, newly minted activists Ernesto Galarza, Herman Gallegos, and Julian Samora founded La Raza in 1966, and began to connect with the progressive new liberal elites who had captured the wealthy foundations.

One such figure was Paul Ylvisaker, director of public affairs at the Ford Foundation. Ylvisaker granted a UCLA research team $650,000 in 1966 which framed its mission as raking up similarities between the Latino experience in the Southwest and that of African-Americans. Ford also established the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) which agitated for Spanish-language ballots. What Ylvisaker sought was a “united front” among Latinos to complement other oppositional minority movements.

Meanwhile, the African-American race riots of the late 60s, argues Gonzalez, confronted Democratic policymakers with the conundrum of how to respond. The establishment, writes Gonzalez, “panicked,” ploughing money into racial preference programs like minority set-asides (for government contracts) and affirmative action. Latino and Asian groups were encouraged to participate in this effort, and flourished in the wake of policies originally targeted at African-Americans.

For Gonzalez, “Hispanic” and “Asian” are artificial, top-down constructs that held little meaning for concrete ethnic groups like Cubans, Mexicans, Chinese or Indians. Early attempts to cultivate resentment among Latinos were met with indifference or even hostility. Organizations like La Raza consisted of little more than a few well-connected intellectuals with access to money and political influencers. Likewise, Japanese-American Marxist Yuji Ichioka coined the term “Asian American” in 1966 and founded the Asian-American Political Alliance (AAPA). A Berkeley student radical, he drank from the wellsprings of Black Panther militancy and Maoism. Styling themselves after Mao’s Red Guards, these Asian-American activists hoped to rouse Asians into a cohesive body that could press their grievances alongside black and Hispanic groups. Again, these constructions lived mainly in the minds of Marxist intellectuals rather than the communities they claimed to represent.

Progressive activists worked tirelessly to breathe life into their newly fabricated pan-ethnic political categories. Those of an earlier generation who questioned whether Hispanics really were a separate race, and who believed in assimilation, like University of Texas’ George Sanchez, were accused of false-consciousness and having “gringo tendencies.” Meanwhile La Raza leader Samora and his colleagues twigged to the fact that racial recognition was key to accessing federal funds. With help from the courts, who ruled that Mexican-Americans were an “identifiable ethnic minority class” in 1971, they lobbied the Census Bureau to create a new “Hispanic” category in 1980, separate from whites. Once in motion, this took on a life of its own.

None of this had to do with changing demographics, argues Gonzalez. In the 1960s and 70s, Hispanics and Asians were small groups. Elite organizing, not grassroots demand, drove identity politics. The impetus, he adds, came largely from highly-educated whites imbued with the new cultural variety of Marxism that began with Critical Theory and emerged in the 1960s.

The Long March

The original Critical Theorists of the 1930s and 40s Frankfurt School—Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse—were frustrated at the failure of West European workers to make revolution. These emigrés came to America in the 40s, where they left behind a powerful intellectual legacy. Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Europe in the 50s, but Marcuse stayed on to become the avatar of the American New Left. Not only were his books Eros and Civilization (1955) and One Dimensional Man (1964) incredibly influential, but Marcuse personally tutored Black Panther Angela Davis in revolutionary doctrine.

Marcuse was a disciple of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist imprisoned by Mussolini, who advocated for the gradual takeover of institutions and upending of bourgeois national cultures. These, Gramsci believed, were a form of “false consciousness” that pacified the revolutionary impulses of the working class. Marcuse had lost hope in the American white worker but saw revolutionary potential in “the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other colors.” Here is a classic statement of the so-called “turn of the left” from working-class historical materialism to identity politics and multiculturalism. As a kicker, Marcuse threw in the authoritarian idea of “repressive tolerance,” which advocated censoring the freedom of conservatives to express themselves, a seed which has blossomed into left-authoritarian cancel culture.

Fired by New Left ideas, the veterans of the sixties student revolts entered the gates of the rapidly expanding university system, foundations, federal agencies, and the judiciary. So began a stealth campaign to remake the culture by, to paraphrase communist Rudi Dutschke, “marching through the institutions” below the radar of democratic oversight.

The post-60s New Left, with its focus on hierarchy and group conflict, has captured the culture, and is taking it in an increasingly fundamentalist “woke” direction.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of education. Sixties New Left ideas first made headway in universities, capturing the Education Schools that train many of the nation’s teachers. Civics lessons were steered away from inculcating pride in the nation’s history, liberal ideals, and the Constitution. Instead, they consistently emphasized the victim-oppressor narrative. The New York Times1619 Project, which rides roughshod over historical accuracy in order to concoct a grievance-based American history and has been adopted in some school districts, shows how New Left critical race theory is shaping the next generation.

Progressive cultural activism is constantly seeking to innovate, taking things to new levels. In early 2019, New York City Education chancellor Richard Carranza ordered principals, central office supervisors, and superintendents in the 1,800-school system to undergo mandatory re-education to stamp out “white supremacy culture” and “implicit bias.” These “struggle sessions,” for Gonzalez, recall the brainwashing of Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

The account is highly persuasive, and Gonzalez is absolutely correct to focus on progressive entryism via the liberal institutions. The post-60s New Left, with its focus on hierarchy and group conflict, has captured the culture, and is taking it in an increasingly fundamentalist “woke” direction. This is emptying out the content of American nationhood, from its constitution to its history, social unity to freedom of speech.

He is right to finger white liberal activism as the engine of change, and to connect it to today’s Progressive Activists, who make up a tiny but influential 8 percent of the US population. Minority activists played their part, but much of the impetus came from the elite level. The mass grievances of Hispanics and Asians didn’t fuel identity politics. Instead, the nexus of white liberals, with access to money and power, and minority radicals, who sought to construct a power base, set the juggernaut in motion.

Gonzalez has a nuanced eye for the public institutions and bureaucratic levers that radical activists managed to commandeer. His focus on culture is bang on, as this is where progressives have waged their Gramscian quest to exert hegemony over how the nation perceives itself.

Invented Categories

This doesn’t mean I agree with everything in these pages. John Judis is not the progressive activist Gonzalez suggests, but a populist and left-wing nationalist who wants lower immigration and champions the American working-class. He may back a welfare state, but his progressivism is economic, and he would largely agree with much of this analysis. His work with Ruy Texeira was essentially empirical, a far cry from the millenarian celebration of white decline that entrances the identity left.

Gonzalez is of course correct to note that Hispanics and Asians are primarily attached to their narrower ethnicity rather than wider pan-ethnic categories. Yet this doesn’t preclude the fact that the larger categories have meaning. Just as someone may attach to being both Irish and white, French and European, survey work I’ve done shows that many Cubans, Mexicans or Puerto Ricans are also attached—albeit less strongly—to their outer “Hispanic” layer of identity. Asian is more confected, but Hispanic, like white, has meaning as a social category.

Census categorization did not create the social realities these groups represent, though categories tend to foreground the less meaningful Hispanic outer layer above the concrete ethnicities underneath. They also “racialize” the Hispanic category and direct spoils toward Latino elites. Gonzalez rightly notes that the census inflates Hispanic numbers through its “one-drop” rule that classifies someone with one Mexican grandparent and seven Anglo ones as Hispanic.

Still, on the ground, Ted Cruz and his children are—for all intents and purposes—white Americans, whatever the census says. So is the assimilated “Spanglo” who ticks the Hispanic box to gain an advantage. The rub for critical race theorists, of course, is that if “Hispanic” has a basis in social reality, “White” does too. Far from an invention designed to oppress POCs, it is as real a social group as the others.

Though Gonzalez overstates the invented quality of Hispanic identity, he’s correct that progressive activists have pushed a ‘common enemy’ version of Latino pan-ethnicity, and, as the considerable Hispanic and Asian Trump vote revealed, that this agitation has largely fallen on deaf ears. We should celebrate Gonzalez’ plea for a melting-pot America, in which newcomers assimilate to produce “Heinz 57” descendants. Limited government is a valuable tradition, and this should be taught as an American inheritance.

Nonetheless, Gonzalez might have said more about what it means to melt into the “Heinz 57” American ethnic majority, as distinct from the nation-state (which must include the unmelted). One reason ethnicity appeals to many is because it contains greater cultural richness and rootedness than a civic nationalism based on fealty to liberal democratic principles. Universalism might have been enough to hang national identity on in 1776, but it doesn’t provide much distinctiveness today. The National Conservatives that Gonzalez obliquely criticizes are therefore correct that civic national conceptions need to be underpinned by something rooted in everyday life. Majority identity needs to be given cultural content in the form of the collective memory and folk culture of the Anglo-Protestant settlers and those who have intermarried into this ever-enlarging ethnic core. Without these vernacular elements, there will always be a powerful draw towards multiculturalism.

With the electoral earthquakes of 2016, conservative politicians have begun to understand that focusing only on the material sphere while trying to stay on the PC left’s good side can only lead to the fulfillment of Conquest’s Second Law.

A final sore spot is that the book drastically underplays the complicity of America’s conservative establishment in the progressive cultural revolution. The American right between the 1970s and 2010s came to fixate on the neoconservative trinity of tax cuts, foreign adventurism and evangelical enthusiasms like faith-based charity. These were all “safe,” in that they avoided challenging the identity left’s sacred cows of race and gender. Where they didn’t actively assist identity politics—as with Nixon and affirmative action—they turned a blind eye to illegal immigration and the rewriting of American history. Instead of cheap talk about cutting the state, conservatives should have spent those decades figuring out how to reform and recapture it.

Restoring Conservative Politics

Can the Republic be salvaged? Gonzalez is truly excellent in identifying some of the concrete institutional work that conservatives and classical liberals will need to do if reason, cohesion and liberty are to be restored. State legislatures, says Gonzalez, have to wake up. If they did, they would realize that they have the power to “appoint members of governing boards, who in turn appoint the top administrators. They control the purse strings for universities, and have ultimate control over the K-12 curriculum. They can alter certification procedures and standards… even change education school governance and personnel practices.” More must emulate Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who asked why Howard Zinn’s grievance-based American history text was being taught in the state’s schools. He called it a “truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page,” and was roundly attacked by the educational establishment. Conservatives are going to need to find the stomach, focus and patience to engage in these battles.

Gonzalez calls for a “crusade for the curriculum” and cites both William Bennett, Reagan’s education secretary, and Robert Pondisco, who nails the matter precisely:

Where conservatives have grown wary and suspicious of meddling in curricula, activists and advocates on the Left have demonstrated far less reticence about imposing their views, moving further from the unifying impulse undergirding the entire purpose of public education.

This is going to require a passionate political campaign to rally the electorate, claims Gonzalez, as it will be ferociously resisted by the education establishment. All of which brings to mind historian Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics, that “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.” With the electoral earthquakes of 2016, conservative politicians have begun to understand that focusing only on the material sphere while trying to stay on the PC left’s good side can only lead to the fulfillment of Conquest’s Second Law. Instead, reformers must treat every one of the country’s elite institutions like the Supreme Court: an institution to be politically contested until it reflects the mores of the median voter rather than the progressive bubble. A steady, forensic march back through the institutions, of the kind Gonzalez recommends, will be required. This to halt and then reverse the increasingly irrational elements of progressivism, which seek to erase traditional American identity and install an Orwellian blend of newspeak and right-think in place of free speech and objective truth.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on June 15, 2020 at 07:33:07 am

The review gives a paragraph to "the complicity of America’s conservative establishment in the progressive cultural revolution". The worst thing conservatives have done, and still do, is relinquish the word "liberal" to the left.
Here is me on ten reasons not to call leftists "liberal":

read full comment
Image of Daniel Klein
Daniel Klein
on June 15, 2020 at 09:46:29 am

As an admirer of Professor Kaufmann's work who enjoyed and benefited from this review, I was nonetheless disappointed by a failure of his research in its last paragraph. The "second law" he quoted was not in fact coined by Robert Conquest. He did proclaim a second law which is "The behavior of an organization can best be predicted on the assumption that it is headed by a cabal of its enemies." That's a pretty good second law, and Conquest's first law--"Everyone is a reactionary on his own subject"-- is pretty good too (though more "controversial," as the saying goes.) Bob who was a close friend coined his second law in an e-mail exchange with me following the coinage of O'Sullivan's First Law -- "All organizations that are not avowedly right-wing become left-wing over time"--by, ahem, me.

read full comment
Image of John O'Sullivan
John O'Sullivan
on June 15, 2020 at 13:43:43 pm

Having read this comment after I posted my comment, I herewith change two references in my comment from "Conquest" to "O'Sullivan" and the number of the law of organizations from "Second" to "First."

read full comment
Image of paladin
on June 15, 2020 at 10:28:01 am

Amen to all Mr. Kaufmann presents as Mr. Gonzalez' observations and promotions. As a child of the 40s, I have witnessed ... though mostly from afar ... the increasing institutionalized ignorance produced by our public schools. Somewhat miming Mr. Reagan, an upper-grade teacher noted as she recently entered the field ... "These children know nothing. And what they do know is wrong." When fundamental instruction is wrong, what can be built on it? Let me give a related example: the trend for identity pride, as in in Black Pride or White Pride. Do you think it makes sense to be proud of an accident?

Shouldn't pride come from an achievement? From some volitional act that requires effort and produces good results? A person's race and place of birth are mere accidents of nature; there's no choice, act or accomplishment in them. Not so for scholarship. Not so for mastering a fruitful skill. Not so for helping to build a strong, righteous nation. Not so for raising good children. But mere race? There's no accomplishment there; no foundation for pride. Our children should be proud to do, not merely to be. In particular, to do something good. Then they can justly be proud of themselves.

read full comment
Image of John Tate
John Tate
on June 16, 2020 at 17:13:03 pm

Yes, pride comes from achievement, but we must be careful not to let that position degrade into presentism. We can be proud to be the torchbearers for classical liberal principles, but we did not invent them, and it is “mere accident” that we were born into a culture that permitted and arguably encouraged us to do so. Respect for our intellectual forebears, celebration of our joint heritage, and, yes, pride in that joint heritage is entirely appropriate.

read full comment
Image of David Wall
David Wall
on June 15, 2020 at 13:32:53 pm

Let me express my appreciation to Gonzales and Kaufmann for their exposure of the rampant left-wing hate-America rampant throughout the American educational system. But such sporadic individual effort orgs. have limited effectiveness.
What is required is a working group in cooperation with conservative foundations to develop a long-term program of restructuring. Let me take as an example the immediate duty of halting the incorporation of the Times' 1619 project in
school curricula. There should have been an organized protest against its Puke-litzer award that exposed how the committee's secretary had been a long-time Times employee along with the history of ties between the Times and the Columbia School of Journalism and, more generally, the Columbia University administration. To give one example: when the historian Charles A. Beard resigned in protest against the firing of rejoicing anti-war faculty in 1917, the Times ran an editorial rejoicing its ridding itself of a trouble-maker. The widespread belief on Morningside Heights was that the secret author was Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler. So much for the fraud of the Times' as a model of honest journalism.
As for the potential damage of the 1619 fraud, there should be organized suits against its adoption by school boards and individual schools on the ground that it is not legitimate history but propaganda.
Re the long-term restructuring, I suggest that the keynote should be to shift public funding from institutions to parents and students. To give one example: instead of the legislature appropriating money to be used at the will of University Michigan administrators, there should be a state-wide qualifying examination for higher education with the money going directly to the student for him or her to go, for instance, to Hillside College if that be the preferred choice.

read full comment
Image of John Braeman
John Braeman
on June 15, 2020 at 13:35:23 pm

The book reviewer invokes Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics, “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.” And then he states of a specific recommendation in Gonzalez's new book of ways for conservatives to retake the lost culture and the lost constitution of our country, "... (R)eformers must treat every one of the country’s elite institutions like the Supreme Court: an institution to be politically contested until it reflects the mores of the median voter rather than the progressive bubble."

We must surely treat the Supreme Court, as Conquest says, like the destructive left-wing institution it has been since 1938. And as far as a constitutional counter-offensive in the culture war which conservatives have all but lost, except for Clarence Thomas' personally-waged, courageous, push back in 1991 against a Senatorial and media lynch mob, conservatives generally and the Republican Party in particular (and most shamefully) have for the most part failed to fight for what they believe.

Finally, I would note that both statements, Conquest's Second Law of Politics and Gonzalez's advice to contemporary conservatives regarding the existential importance of the Supreme Court, are painfully ironic today with yet another in an eight-decades long line of legally-pathetic, culturally-devastating decisions by SCOTUS. The latest decision is in Bostock v. Clayton and related LGBTQ cases.

Read it and cry, the beloved country.

read full comment
Image of paladin
on June 20, 2020 at 21:00:00 pm

I also noticed the contradiction between “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing” and reform that reflects the mores of the median voter (I.e, not explicitly right wing by any means in current year). By Conquest’s logic, Taking the moderate tack would only produce institution that, again, end up left-wing.

read full comment
Image of ADL Pyramid of Hate
ADL Pyramid of Hate
on June 15, 2020 at 18:53:26 pm

Well, it would appear that the 2nd Law AND Gonzalez's Advice are IN - BLOODY-SUFFICIENT to achieve the hoped for objective as evidenced by the (allegedly) conservative SCOTUS we created after "fighting" like Hell for it - ONLY to yield judidicial excrescences such as Bostock v Clayton wherein two Reputed conservatives - AND one highly touted as an ORIGINALIST - managed to mangle Scalia's teachings on Textualism and in so doing managed to confer the Imprimatur of the Black Robes on the delusional fantasy that denies millions of years of biology, i.e. transgenderism, gender fluidity and a willful and stubborn denial of the reality of the particular appendage or lack thereof between one's legs.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on June 15, 2020 at 21:34:12 pm

The author raises many valid points. However, the "mores of the median voter" (last paragraph) may be part of the problem:

See https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/defining-the-people/

read full comment
Image of Grant Havers
Grant Havers
on June 19, 2020 at 09:47:58 am

Understanding Antifa
To gain a voice over Antifa one must use the right meanings and the appropriate thinking of our Founding Fathers. We are a Federal Republic and not a Federal Democracy. Washington’s idea was to capture the ideas of Augustus Caesar that led Caesar’s Constitution of 27 BC to have its First Counsel as head of the military and in control of ambassadors and spies on the border. Internal security developed into the ideas of a 200 year Pax Romana. Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were to write our Constitutions of the Democracies. These were the Constitutions of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They also were the Committee that wrote our Declaration of Independence with the Commonwealth man imparting equality to these original states. Who is this Commonwealth man? Is he part Jeffersonian, or Franklin or Adams? Somewhat, but they understood who he was, which were Massachusetts men returning to England supported by Governor John Winthrop and his brother-in-law, Col. Thomas Rainsborough of an Independent Regiment. In England they submitted an Agreement of the People, a democratic document with voting for all, term limits, etc. Cromwell, at the Putney House debates turned down these revolutionary democratic Levellers of Massachusetts. John Winthrop, a protégé of Chief Justice Edward Coke, wrote a Massachusetts Body of Liberties and an acknowledgment of other compacts forming Massachusetts. Coke’s work, known and studied by our 1776 Commonwealth men, led to strict definitions of executive, legislative and judicial functions which Coke had amply filled during his lifetime.
The history of American Constitutionalism includes James Monroe’s Second and Third Northwest Territorial Ordinances and Alexander Hamilton’s Unwritten American Constitution of his Federalist Papers, Reports to the Legislature and work on private state enterprises like the Bank of New York, maritime, life and property insurance and the stock market of 1793. Monroe created the blueprint of democracy in action in Monroe’s future states, while Hamilton knew more about risk and the economic disruptions that would follow as well as knowledge of the public and private administrative state. Monroe, as a French Citizen, in 1803 was able to convince Napoleon that the American states spreading from the Mississippi to the Pacific would defend the Louisiana colony better than an army of 50,000 Frenchmen against British and Spanish interests.
The Democratic States are where one fights the Antifa with their 250 year history of a struggle for equality of opportunity and schooling. The ability to petition and assemble provide the mechanisms of the struggle among its voluntary adherents. While the Federal Constitution provides 27 Amendments to its Constitution, the typical Commonwealth state has had hundreds of rewrites and Amendments that have brought increasing virtue and justice to its citizens.
A revolutionary war dinning group formed under Washington at Valley Forge is inclusive of those Social Justice Scholar Warriors who formed our Republic for a Democratic state. In 1825 President Monroe, his childhood companion, Chief Justice John Marshall and the Marquis de Lafayette could, at the end of the Era of Good Feeling, say that these graduates of Valley Forge had done well. Marshall had extended the work of Alexander Hamilton and in part Monroe of Light-horse Harry Lee, all survivors of Valley Forge days with General George Washington. These Social Justice- scholar- warriors and future lawyers were George Washington’s gift to the new independent states.
The above story relates a tale of heroic men who produced a Declaration of Independence and who gave us true Commonwealth men in producing the Democratic Sovereign states that would give us the ability to live under and with a Pax Americana for its citizens through a limited Federal Republic. In addition they had found support from minority religious groups. Washington had utilized Future Bishop John Carroll of Maryland’s group of former Jesuits to be chaplains for the third of his army that was Catholic while the Baptists of Rhode Island provided similar services for the Protestant troops. Pennsylvania Lutherans joined the crowd with the Methodists of Connecticut. Not to be outdone the Presbyterians of New Jersey centered at Princeton supported the Revolution. After the victory the religious revolutionaries went with their flocks to the west to establish towns, schools and churches to create the communities that presented an American way. They had brought with them the morality of the Bible that supported American expansion. Without this religious invasion of the west could de Tocqueville ever have described Democracy in America?
Our successful Revolutionary Social Justice Warriors and the multitude of religious leaders who led west the immigrants, schools and communities are our models and challenge in comparing today’s Antifa actions to our original actions.

read full comment
on June 21, 2020 at 15:20:55 pm

Let us not forget the email leak that revealed the attempt to create a “new springtime” in The Catholic Church so that it is no longer Bishop v. bishop, Cardinal v. cardinal, but pope v. every other validly elected Pope, in order to push their atheist materialist over population alarmists globalist agenda, that denies that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage.

God Save Our Holy Father, Benedict XVI!

May Our Blessed Mother Intercede for Holy Mother Church and protect our Holy Father, Benedict XVI



Come Holy Ghost

read full comment
Image of N.D.
on June 16, 2020 at 01:01:54 am

[…] The False Dichotomy On Race Is Tearing The Nation Apart – Tristan Justice at The Federalist An American Cultural Revolution? – Eric Kaufmann at Law & Liberty The Collapse of Entitlement Federalism – Chris […]

on July 20, 2020 at 21:46:32 pm

... [Trackback]

[...] Read More: lawliberty.org/book-review/an-american-cultural-revolution/ [...]

on August 03, 2020 at 12:39:24 pm

[…] Marxism that focuses on race and sex conflict instead of the interests of the working class. As the precursors of today’s intersectional left, cultural marxists believe that subverting traditions and […]

on August 04, 2020 at 02:33:56 am

[…] Marxism that focuses on race and sex conflict instead of the interests of the working class. As the precursors of today’s intersectional left, cultural marxists believe that subverting traditions and […]

on September 18, 2020 at 03:37:14 am

... [Trackback]

[...] Find More on to that Topic: lawliberty.org/book-review/an-american-cultural-revolution/ [...]

on September 18, 2020 at 04:47:34 am

... [Trackback]

[...] Read More Info here on that Topic: lawliberty.org/book-review/an-american-cultural-revolution/ [...]

on September 18, 2020 at 06:21:21 am

... [Trackback]

[...] Info to that Topic: lawliberty.org/book-review/an-american-cultural-revolution/ [...]

on December 02, 2020 at 06:32:15 am

[…] in style films like Gangs of New York and the like. As I take pains to explain in my new guide, The Plot to Change America, Germans had been treated maybe worse. It was opposition to immigration by each teams that gave […]

on December 02, 2020 at 06:33:11 am

[…] popular movies like Gangs of New York and the like. As I take pains to describe in my new book, The Plot to Change America, Germans were treated perhaps worse. It was opposition to immigration by both groups that gave […]

on December 02, 2020 at 07:02:06 am

[…] popular movies like Gangs of New York and the like. As I take pains to describe in my new book, The Plot to Change America, Germans were treated perhaps worse. It was opposition to immigration by both groups that gave […]

on December 02, 2020 at 08:13:53 am

[…] like Gangs of New York and the like. As I take pains to describe in my new book, The Plot to Change America, Germans were treated perhaps worse. It was opposition to immigration by both groups that gave […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.